Appeal No. 2006-0567
Application 09/938,256
405 which presents to the user a synthesized output based upon
user specified style elements, criteria or attributes such as
color, shape or form depicted in other figures in Kagami.
Figure 6 of Kagami also outputs a design image to the user based
upon an analyzed user’s sensibilities as expressed at logic
element 603 which is also discussed at column 9. To the extent
broadly recited in representative independent claim 1 on appeal,
Kagami clearly teaches the retrieval of a synthesized image
object from the storage elements 203 for presentation on the
image output device 206 of figures 1 and 2.
We do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of all
dependent claims set forth initially at pages 6 and 7 of the
Answer as to the newly stated rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Beginning at the bottom of page 7 through the end of the Reply
Brief, appellants present specific arguments challenging the
examiner’s correlation as to the features recited in the
dependent claims. Because the examiner has not filed a separate
Supplemental Answer for our consideration as to these allegations
relative to the dependent claims in the Reply Brief, the
rejection of them under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is not sustained.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007